Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

The mounting cost of violence

The real question, the author says, is what kind of world do we want to live in? | Reuters

But the real problem — and complete fallacy — with the thinking that defense-related, or violence-containing, jobs are good jobs that we should keep for the mere fact of retaining job numbers (as some in Congress have argued), is that compared to other areas of federal investment, military spending is a poor source of job creation.

According to the Political Economy Research Institute, investing $1 billion in education resulted in 138 percent more jobs than the same amount of spending on the military. Investing in health care created 54 percent more jobs. Investing $1 billion in clean energy technology generated 50 percent more jobs. Thus, if federal investment in the military creates fewer jobs than other federal spending, then cutting the military will cost fewer jobs than cuts to other programs.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The real question, then, at the end of the day, is what kind of world do we want to live in, and are we spending on the right security priorities?

I want to live in a world where we’re prioritizing economic security by ensuring that our kids are globally competitive in reading, science and math (instead of scoring consistently near the bottom of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Programme on International Student Assessment rankings).

I want to live in a world where we’re prioritizing energy and climate security by ensuring that America has sustainable and renewable sources of power and is living on a carbon neutral diet (instead of continuing to rely on dirty fossil fuels and carbon-rich diets that make for the hottest year on record and extreme weather patterns).

I want to live in a world where we’re prioritizing food security (in an age of crop devastation), religious security (in an age of intolerance, hate crimes, and violent protest), and health security (in age of pandemics and viruses).

That’s exactly where we should be spending our time, energy and money. This is how you build real security. It’s not done through drones, joint strike fighters or nuclear weapons. This latest report shows that there are 2.1 trillion reasons why our economy needs us to realize that, and soon, before our violence containment industry grows out of our control.

Readers' Comments (13)

The rantings of another deranged Liberal. Guess POLITICO didn't have much hard news to cover. Cost of violence? Really? Look at the Federal budget - how much goes to the FBI, DEA, ATF vs. for Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare and Medicaid? Then look at your state budget - the vast majority of funds go to Medicaid and Education. Not much goes for the state troopers or prisons. Can We the People really expect much from a Congress filled with folks like this? The Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years while we have spent more than a trillion dollars each year more than tax revenues. No one has cut any spending - except for the defense budget. Taxes have gone up - cigarettes, Obamacare with its 21 new taxes and then TAXMAGGEDON looming ahead on January 1st. More regulations have been issued under Obama in his first term than any President in the post WW II era. And what has Obama done, if anything, to curb violence in his first term? Chicago's murder rate makes it more dangerous than Afghanistan. We have had several terrorist attacks within the US, notably Fort Hood. And Fast & Furious put more guns into the hands of violent Mexican cartels. Please, Rep. Honda, get your priorities straight.

1 out of every 7 dollars spent in the U.S. is spent containing violence. For every 1 dollar that comes in Mr Obama spends 3 dollars. Spending 2 dollars more than what comes in.

Violence since Mr Obama had taken office has grown, the hood shooting, Arab spring, OWS ( supported by democrats), illegal aliens killing Americans ( border patrol agents/American citizens )( government workers in Libya ) etc. Violence has a free ride from Mr Obama, all this from a person that speaks of the rule of law but yet refuses the rule of law, and makes up his own.

Mr Obama has spent more (tax payers) money on law suits against states that try to enforce the law, that he refuses to have enforced by Ice part of the "department of no home land security "The obama/ nappy effect.

Mr Obama says no to water bordering, but yes to drome strikes. So which one is more violent?

Water bordering you get information that may save lives, Drome strikes just take lives. The Obama crew have no clue to when a terrorist attacks, look no further than Libya, fort Hood etc. Mr Obama calls it work place crimes. Take notice when the economy is bad violence rises.

How bad will the violence get when every one is on welfare and food stamps, have no jobs to help give their families the basics they need.

Sure doesn't look like any one is containing the violence with tax payer monies.

I'm not sure why someone has to be a Marxist Democrat to be against violence. I guess you think Jesus was a Marxist Democrat too, right? There are countries in the world where the sole purpose of the government is for defense of the country, one of those is Zambia. I'm sure you would love it there! You would the freedom to do whatever you want!

It's a Marxist Democratic idea to spend money on trying to keep our citizens healthy, but it's good old fashion Christian Conservatism to spend it on killing. If you mouth breathers hate it here so much, you could always move to Canada. You know, the country with government run healthcare.

Honda is a total phony and hypocrite. He has never once voted for the death penalty and has a history of being pro criminal rights. All democrats are squishy soft on crime, period. They do not support police or strong laws to deter crime. They want to do away with 3 strikes which has put thousands of ultra violent felons behind bars before they hurt or kill again. Ask this clown Honda if he supports 3 strikes? This guy writing about crime is like the arsonist running the fire department. Get out of our life Honda. Obama and Honda are two peas in a pod. Good riddance, no more apologies to the criminals.

It used to be that the notion, held only by an aberrant few (that he/she was entitled to another person's property) was manageable by a publicly supported criminal justice system with harsh, certain outcomes.

But what happens when avarice is the norm, and covetousness and revenge are encouraged in the culture by the no less than the President himself?... That your personal failures have become the fault of the guy who didn't fail? .... And that this supreme leader will get you what you have coming, and you can even take it legally through redistribution, if only you keep him in power?

Will the supreme leader be able to manage the predictable fall-out?

Chaos will be the new normal... coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Bunker down.

It's sad that some can't comment without name calling either the letter writer or others opinions. It really is very immature to say the least. As regard wars, some are necessary but others are not as in Iraq. Money wasted and precious lives lost on both sides. Republicans never batted an eye at money being spent on that trumped up war that was never paid for but they are now so concerned over the deficit. You have to laugh at their hypocrisy.

How refreshing to see a politician, on either side of the aisle, wiling to question old canards such as "we can't cut defense spending because we'll lose jobs." Many people would prefer to use their engineering skills to build products that better the human condition, such as clean energy, new forms of transportation, health technology, etc., rather than tools of destruction. Investing in schools, healthcare and job creation would lower the cost of responding to violence because well-educated people who can take care of their families and feel that they are a productive part of a well-functioning society are less likely to be violent.IA preventive approach to violence is less expensive than the reactive approach, just as preventive health care is less expensive than reactive health care. Simple concepts, yet difficult to implement if our funding decisions are based on fear.

Do you want to get rid of a large part of violent crime? Legalize marijuana. Remove the money from the drug trade and a lot of problems go away. It probably wouldn't hurt to actually make prison uncomfortable either.

Here is the issue. If we legalize drugs, we will need a much smaller DEA and prison system. A smaller DEA and prison system means more unemployment. No politician in his right mind really wants to solve crime. There is too much money in it.

"Do you want to get rid of a large part of violent crime? Legalize marijuana. Remove the money from the drug trade and a lot of problems go away"

Truth. Not just pot, but cocaine, other "recreational" drugs. Look at the injustice - the Obese, college drop-out, serial husband Libaugh can be a drug addict, but no jail for him - jail is primarily for blacks, and since prisons have been outsourced, it's big business - any wonder the US has the highest prison population???? Government subsidized private prisons..